[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN] What is a game? (again) was:[Excellent commentary on Vanguard's diplomacy system]

[cruise]

Thus spake Caliban Darklock...
> On 3/16/07, cruise <cruise at casual-tempest.net> wrote:
>> A war can have mutually agreed upon rules. And it doesn't, technically
>> have to have a win or loss condition - stalemates happen quite often.
>> Again, however, I doubt most involved would consider it a game.
> 
> And yet, that's precisely what it is. Just like "The Sims" isn't a
> game, even though many people call it one, because it doesn't involve
> mutual agreement on the rules. It's a toy.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so :P
By your definition, are all single-player "games" actually toys?

>> A game is free of consequences outside of "the game"
> 
> This isn't true. See strip poker. The consequences of being naked are
> largely the intent of playing the game in the first place.

So getting the cute chick nekkid is part of the game :P She can still 
put her clothes back on (or just stop playing) at any time.

>> The slogan you quote ("it doesn't have
>> to be fun to be fun") is cute, but what exactly does it mean?
> 
> If you don't get it, you don't get it. ;)

That was largely rhetorical :P

> The best explanation I can offer is that you can enjoy doing something
> even when it is not enjoyable. I don't enjoy doing a push-up. However,
> if I do as many push-ups as I can in twenty seconds, then rest for ten
> seconds, then repeat the process for a total of eight times... what
> they call the Tabata method, after its Japanese inventor... that's
> fun. It hurts like hell and I'm sore for two days afterward, but it's
> fun.

So it's 1): the reward is the motivation.

>> The greater the balance towards 1) the more it feels like work, and as
>> you move towards 2) it becomes more "playful".
> 
> I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

But of course, and I said as much. But it's accurate enough for the 
scope we're considering (reason for any action).

>> > On another note, I just lost the game. ( ilostthegame.org ) Which has
>> > no win condition, but does have a lose condition. This is unusual, but
>> > hardly unique... life itself has no win condition, but does have a
>> > lose condition (death).
>>
>> Some religions might argue with that latter statement :P, but okay. So?
> 
> It's possible to have any combination of win conditions and lose
> conditions. You can have one, or both, or neither. It is also possible
> to have multiple conditions which are "win" or "lose", and may or may
> not have relative rankings. There may also be a "neither" condition.

Absolutely.

>> Would you agree with this hierarchy?
>>
>> Play > Toy > Game
> 
> No, because I don't think "Toy" and "Game" are heirarchical. I think
> they are parallel. I don't think one evolves out of the other. I think
> both descend from "Fun" in the sense that there is a point where one
> is enjoying himself, but has no control over it.

But do both "Toy" and "Game" descend from "Play"?

Is "it" the fun, the "game" or the "toy" in that last sentence?

Excuse the pedantry, but since I'm trying to get as close as possible to 
a formal definition of these terms, precision is important.

>> And you seem to be implying that a game requires several individuals,
>> are "playing" to the same rules, yes?
> 
> At least two, but yes. Similar to the above. Sex is a game.
> 
>> it is no longer a game when a player adds his own objectives or concepts
>> to the mutually agreed on rules?
> 
> A game is damaged and potentially destroyed by the introduction of
> toys, because the toy alters the game for everyone. Even if only you
> have the toy, I now play a game where a player might have that toy.
> That alters my game decisions. Eventually, there are simply too many
> special cases - it requires more effort to track all the toys than it
> does to track the actual productive rules of the game.

Yet a toy is, by your definition, "a deliberate attempt to induce fun." 
You can't seriously be implying games are damaged by players attempting 
to enjoy themselves? :P